SANDRA WALL, AND JAMES WALL, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sandra Wall slipped and fell at a Costco store and sued for negligence. A jury found Costco 60% negligent and awarded damages, but the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for new trial. The appellate court reversed, finding that defense counsel's improper closing argument comments deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial.
The court reversed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial because defense counsel's repeated improper comments throughout closing argument were both improper and harmful, depriving the plaintiffs of a fair trial.
[1] Improper comments by defense counsel during closing arguments can deprive a plaintiff of a fair trial, requiring reversal.
[2] Repeatedly implying that a party is hiding information for devious reasons, or accusing them of fraud on the court, constitutes improper argument.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Counsel for Costco made repeated comments about Sandra being a lawyer's wife and implied to the jury that James was attempting to hide the fact that he was a lawyer for a devious reason.”
Describes the improper comments made by defense counsel that formed the basis for reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSandra Wall slipped and fell on a floor with water and grapes at a Costco store, suffering injuries to her left ankle. The jury found Sandra 40% negli…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Manifest Weight Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sandra Wall and James Wall (“plaintiffs”) appeal an adverse order denying their motion for new trial in a negligence action brought against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”)- We reverse.
The plaintiffs sued Costco after Sandra slipped and fell at a Costco store. According to the plaintiffs, Costco failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition by allowing water and grapes to collect on the floor. The plaintiffs alleged that Sandra slipped on the floor and suffered injuries to her left ankle, as a result of the slippery and unreasonably dangerous condition. Costco denied liability and asserted Sandra’s own comparative negligence was the proximate cause of her injuries.
Trial proceeded, and the jury returned a verdict finding Sandra 40% negligent, and Costco 60% negligent. The plaintiffs were awarded $20,500.00 in damages, offset by Sandra’s percentage of fault. The jury did not award any money on the loss of consortium claim brought by James.
Plaintiffs then filed a motion for new trial raising numerous issues. The plaintiffs claimed error in several evidentiary rulings, asserted that Costco’s counsel’s comments in closing argument were inappropriate and prejudicial, claimed the verdict was contrary to law and the manifest weight of the evidence, and argued the jury was confused in failing to award consortium damages. The trial court denied the motion for new trial, however awarded James $600.00 in consortium damages.
Of the numerous issues raised on appeal, we find reversal required by the improper comments made throughout defense counsel’s argument which deprived the plaintiffs of a fair trial. Counsel for Costco made repeated comments about Sandra being a lawyer’s wife and implied to the jury that James was attempting to hide the fact that he was a lawyer for a devious reason. Repeated references were also made about the plaintiffs’ daughter and why she had not been called as a witness. Although counsel knew the daughter was estranged from the plaintiffs and had disappeared, he suggested she did not appear in court because she would have indicated that Sandra was at fault for the accident. Comments were also made accusing the plaintiffs of committing a fraud on the court and on the jury.
Reviewing the totality of the evidence, we find the comments made were both improper and harmful, thus requiring reversal. See Johnnides v. Amoco Oil Co., Inc., 778 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Finding reversal is required by the improper comments, we do not address the several other contentions raised by the plaintiffs in this appeal.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carnival Corp. v. Pajares, 972 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…dded). These comments were improper as counsel implied that Dr. Diskin’s failure to offer testimony regarding the standard of care of Carnival’s doctors was because Carnival had no favorable testimony to provide. See Wall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 857 So. 2d 975, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (holding that defense counsel’s comments regarding the plaintiffs failure to call her daughter to testify, where defense counsel knew that the daughter was estranged from her parents and had disappeared, deprived the plaintif…
-
SDG Dadeland Assocs., Inc. v. Anthony, 979 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…l settled that statements by counsel in closing argument which accuse opposing counsel of hiding evidence and of fraudulently preventing the presentation of relevant evidence constitute reversible error. See generally Wall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 857 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (reversal required because of comments made by defense counsel regarding the plaintiffs failure to call her daughter to testify where defense counsel knew daughter was estranged from parents); Hernandez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,…
-
Glenna Fisher v. Perez, 947 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…ttled that statements by counsel in closing argument which accuse [*656] opposing counsel of hiding evidence and fraudulently preventing the presentation of relevant evidence constitute reversible error. See generally Wall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 857 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(reversal required because of comments made by defense counsel regarding the plaintiffs failure to call her daughter to testify where defense counsel knew daughter was estranged from parents); Hernandez v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnnides v. Amoco OIL Co., Inc., 778 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)